Dynamic Resistance Based Model for On-Line Resistance Spot Welding Quality Assessment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
On-line quality assessment becomes one of the most critical requirements for improving the efficiency of automatic resistance spot welding (RSW) processes. Accurate and efficient model to perform non-destructive quality estimation is an essential part of the assessment. Besides the usual welding parameters, various measured variables have been considered for quality estimation in RSW. Among these variables, dynamic resistance (DR) gives a relative clear picture of the welding nugget formation and presents a significant correlation with the RSW quality indicators (QI). This paper presents a structured approach developed to design an effective DR-based model for on-line quality assessment in RSW. The proposed approach examines welding parameters and conditions known to have an influence on weld quality, and builds a quality assessment model step by step. The modeling procedure begins by examining, through a structured experimental design, the relationships between welding parameters, typical characteristics of the RD curves and multiple welding QI. Using these results and various statistical tools, different integrated quality assessment models combining an assortment of DR attributes are developed and evaluated. The results demonstrate that the proposed approach can lead to a general model able to accurately and reliably provide an appropriate assessment of the weld quality under variable welding conditions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".